I remember reading both share the same image sensor. So essentially the D700 is a smaller (cheaper) version of the D3. With that in mind would it be worth buying a D3 as a upgrade from a D700? I plan to keep my D700, but want a body that is a bit more rugged and can take a beating! Yet is better or equivalent to a D700.

I would say really high ISO (3200+) looks bit better and my "guess" is that it has bit less heavy AA filter (simply pics are tiny bit sharper). And I prefer body with integrated grip, it kinda feels better.

On other hand you cant make it "smaller" by removing that grip.. Yea and its faster.

Overall its not that big improvement over D700, but still it is nicer. Since right now prices are quite ok, if I could I would buy D3. Otherwise D3s is really improvement, but pretty expensive one..

sjms wrote:
what do you do that makes you feel the need for those bodies you mentioned?

I've recently gotten into hiking so mainly I want something that can handle the elements better; get wet, dirty, and banged around. Think war zone photography on a less rugged but similar scale. The D700 did quite well, through rain, mud, and clouded mountain tops, but just doesn't feel like its solid. From my experience with the D2X and D2H in the past pro bodies are just more ergonomics and built like a tank!

I will be hiking the "John Muir Trail" this summer http://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/john-muir-trail/ And in another year once I've completed my masters degree, I'm planning to quit my dead end job and hike the Pacific Crest Trail 2600 miles (Mexican border to Canadian border). Plan is if I can hike all 2600 miles straight thru, then I'll apply to some doctoral programs - If I can't finish then I'm not cut out for a PhD.

Mainly I want a camera that can handle the elements and take a beating.
Better image quality and resolution is a plus, but 12MP is good enough for me.

I use a D4 and a D7000 for my work. I do a lot of stuff for the nat pk svc. so I go to various places out and about, I us my D7000 in more places then my D4 due to its light weight and really reasonable output. I have 1 DX lens that being the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. the D7000 is somewhat sealed and the sigma is no more sealed then any lens out there. together they weigh less then my D4 body which is pretty much that of the D3/D3s. I really don't think you want to carry that around for 220 miles plus lenses and batteries.
I just did a little drive by on the east side of the sierras around Yosemite. just that one camera and lens

my D7000 has been around many places on the planet in the past few years since I got it. i'm confident it will do 220 miles+ in a pack barring total mayhem and then the camera will become irrelevant.

I have used a 1Ds for years and an F5 as well. I know shoot with a D700 and I will say that the build on the D700 is up to my standards. I live in the PNW, shoot in the ocean, rain, mud, etc and the 700 has done fabulous thus far. It is not uncommon for me to hike with camera on tripod in undesirable conditions...

If your choice is between D3 and D700 for a long 2600 miles hike in the boonies:

You probably don't need the higher fps of the D3.
You probably don't want the extra weight of the D3.
The extra CF card slot of the D3 will be useful for backup if you will not be carrying another backup option like a laptop.
The auto sensor clean of the D700 will be very very useful.

kinconorb wrote:
...I will be hiking the "John Muir Trail" this summer http://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/john-muir-trail/ And in another year once I've completed my masters degree, I'm planning to quit my dead end job and hike the Pacific Crest Trail 2600 miles (Mexican border to Canadian border). Plan is if I can hike all 2600 miles straight thru, then I'll apply to some doctoral programs - If I can't finish then I'm not cut out for a PhD.

Not sure what the connection is between the hike and the PhD. I've met lots of PhD's who would not have been able to make the trip, but then my degree isn't in hiking.

The D3 is nice and rugged, and I used mine in all sorts of weather. Note that the lens has to have the weather sealing also. I've switched to a D4 and it's a great camera, but not all that much better than the D3S as far as images go. 16 MPx compared to 12, a 15% improvement in resolution, isn't really significant IMHO. The ISO performance is similar (hearsay -- I never had a D3S). I've used the D4 up to ISO 200K, but above 50K the images aren't something I'd like to show people.

I'd say for a long trip you should go light. Get yourself a 28-300 and use the D700 for the trip. At the end of the trip graduate to the D4 (or the D3S). The 28-300 is a nice versatile lens and is reasonably sharp. Unless you're planning to sell your images from the trip, the lens is sharp enough for casual use. The 24-70-200 pair is sharper if you need that level of resolution, but then that's 2 lenses to carry. You will probably be carrying enough cards to equal the weight of one of the lenses unless you take breaks off the trail to download to a laptop somewhere.

The D4/D3S is great indoors. Any body will be good outdoors where there's plenty of light. You will probably not need high ISO on the trail, but it will be very useful in graduate school. Example: going to a lecture/seminar/meeting and taking photos of the slides. (For that purpose the D4 excels because it has a truly silent mode).

lara_ckl wrote:
If your choice is between D3 and D700 for a long 2600 miles hike in the boonies:

You probably don't need the higher fps of the D3.
You probably don't want the extra weight of the D3.
The extra CF card slot of the D3 will be useful for backup if you will not be carrying another backup option like a laptop.
The auto sensor clean of the D700 will be very very useful.

Both cameras should be rugged enough for the trip.
+1
+I would look at a used D3s if you really want an improvement over a D700/D3 (vs D3: better ISO performance, sensor cleaning and video are the obvious things that come to mind).

kinconorb wrote:
I've recently gotten into hiking so mainly I want something that can handle the elements better; get wet, dirty, and banged around. Think war zone photography on a less rugged but similar scale. The D700 did quite well, through rain, mud, and clouded mountain tops, but just doesn't feel like its solid.

The "feel" of the camera is one thing - actual performance, at least my own record, seems to indicate that a lightweight prosumer body will do just fine. I've done pretty nasty stuff with my D90 and D7000, and they never failed. Never even showed the marks of having been out in dust and rain for weeks.

If I were to carry something heavy into the backcountry, I would maybe consider a D800e for it's sensor, but not a D3. The weight difference over my D600 body means I can carry more lenses, or a panorama head, a stronger tripod, or other stuff that adds real capability, all at the risk of possibly having the camera fail. However, so far that has never happened, nor is camera failure a life threatening event. Out in the backcountry, the camera is not the most important gear item.

I'm by no means one of these "ultralight" hikers who push their "base weight" lower and lower, but every ounce counts, either allowing more food or more camera gear to go into the pack while staying within the threshold you know you can handle easily. Everything becomes a compromise when putting together gear that has to be carried into the backcountry.

Obviously, much of this only matters in overnight hiking situations, but that's what I do, and for those trips the weight of the camera is more relevant than its rugged construction. Zip lock bags and gaffer tape are great stuff, and nearly free. Tape up the camera and bring an extra lens.

lara_ckl wrote:
If your choice is between D3 and D700 for a long 2600 miles hike in the boonies:

The extra CF card slot of the D3 will be useful for backup if you will not be carrying another backup option.

I've been reading up a lot on the D3 and this is one of the features that would be most beneficial. My plan was to mail cards home at the various stopping points along the trail, but for redundancy having two copies would be perfect (mail one home and keep a copy). I don't plan on taking a laptop (despite being somewhat addicted to computers) besides the extra weight I'd probably end up breaking the screen at some point.

Sanho makes a good portable backup device. I've been using one for a few years backing up portrait and wedding sessions. Perfect unattended backups and great battery life. You can get them from B&H. In case you are curious, here's a mini review I did awhile back.

socaltyger wrote:
Sanho makes a good portable backup device. I've been using one for a few years backing up portrait and wedding sessions. Perfect unattended backups and great battery life. You can get them from B&H. In case you are curious, here's a mini review I did awhile back.